Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
and the further of american foreign policy. all have some questions later on policies and your views, including how you explain to world leaders how you could have been rooting for the boston red sox instead of what the world knows as the new york yankees as a team of the world, but let me say, mr. chairman, it has been a pleasure working with you and looking forward to continuing to work with you on the issues you're a champion of the years. fighting global terrorism, preventing the spread of nuclear biological chemical weapons, fighting for human rights and against hiv aids to a round the world. fighting crime corruption, drug trafficking, and standing up, as you always have, for the interest of foreign service around the world. in your new role, should you be confirmed, and i know you will, your portfolio will be greatly expanded, center stage representing the interest of all this from securing our embassies in protecting our overseas personnel to promoting commerce and enhancing cross cultural ties and keeping american security corporation where possible and isolation where necessary as in
be focused on an unwilling to continue to support? >> well, as i said in my opening, i think foreign policy is increasingly economic policy, and we have an undersecretary for economic affairs, economics, energy etc.. i think that the state department historical use to have a foreign commercial service back in 1979. it slipped away. i think the secretary had the time -- i think that is something we ought to be doing in a very significant way. obviously working with the treasury with agriculture -- atta boy -- ag does and the treasury department does, and i think there is much more that we can do to augment our engagement in the private sector and their desires and needs abroad. i will give you an example. when i was in hong kong and number of years ago i met with our commercial service people. we had three of them. three people in hong kong. and they said they were overwhelmed. they had no ability to be given to mary rfp from china cummins writ with other countries. france was there, germany, england, others were much more aggressive in their promotion of their companies. and that is the wor
-- and so you've had a lot to say about foreign policy. you've also had a thing or two to say about the republican position on taxes and a number of other issues. so i wonder, is your view that republicans need to get right on foreign policy and can that that is really a core issue that's affecting everything else, or do you see that fundamentally as a garnish on the salad, something maybe we ought to -- a nice to have, not an essential? >> you know, i think we need as a party to have -- i won't try to say his last name because i always butcher it myself -- i think we need john and bill need that wing of the party, but we also need realists that acted and thought and saw the world like we with did when we were in congress in the 1990s, when we controlled congress from '94 on where we believe inside a restrained foreign policy. .. as long as republicans have a coherent foreign policy, i think americans will go along with it. i think our bigger problem from the bush era came from the fact he's a big government republican. he came in with $155 billion surplus. when you left we had a tr
currently serves as deputy national security advisor and previously served as a foreign policy specialist in congress. secretary of state hillary clinton was on capitol hill this week testifying before both house and senate committees on the september attack on the consulate in benghazi. this is her appearance before the house foreign relations committee chaired by california congressman ed rice. it's three hours. [background sounds] >> this hearing on the committee on foreign affairs will come to order. welcome, madam secretary. madam secretary, on behalf of the entire committee, let me say how glad we are to see you healthy and how much we appreciate your desire to testify about benghazi before you leave office. let me also say that our appreciation extends to the work that you have performed on behalf of our country. this is our committees opening hearing of this congress. it is my initial hearing as the chairman. examining the first murder of the u.s. ambassador in nearly 35 years the killing of other brave americans is not a work in place to start, but it is necessary. the state depa
of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade, and when we leave the door from the open to new members. a new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combined in flexible cooperation, respecting national differences and not always trying to eliminate them, and in which we have proved that some powers can, in fact, be returned to member states. in other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated european union i have described today. more flexible, more adaptable, more open, fit for the challenges of the modern age. now, to those who say, and there are those who say it, that a new settlement can't be negotiated, i would say listen to the views of other parties in other european countries arguing for powers to flow back to european states. and also look to at what we've achieved already. we have ended the obligation for britain to bail out the eurozone members. we have kept britain out of the fiscal compact. we have launched a process which turns an existing justice
, congress and the administration should be implementing policies that encourage job creation, rein in government regulations, replace our convoluted tax code with one that is fair, simple and certain, open foreign markets to american manufactured goods and agricultural products and develop a comprehensive energy policy. we are not immune from the laws of economics that face every nation. the congressional budget office estimates that government spending on health care entitlements, soegts security and -- social security and interest on the national debt will consume 100% of the total revenues generated by the federal government by the year 2025. that means the money that the government spends on national defense, transportation, veterans health care and other government programs will have to be borrowed, driving us even further into debt. c.b.o. issued a report last june which warned that unless we work to reduce our debt, we face the increased probability of a sudden fiscal crisis that would cause investors to lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and th
assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies." he goes on to say -- "over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. that is trillion with a t. that is money that we have borrowed from the social security trust fund, borrowed from china and japan, borrowed from the american taxpayers. with over -- and over the next five years between now and 2011, the president's budget will increase the debt by almost $3.5 trillion." continuing to quote from senator obama in 2006, "numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. some people may wonder why they matter. here is why. this year, the federal government will spend $220 billion on interest. that is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on medicaid and the state children's health insurance program. that is more money than we pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation and veterans' benefits combined. it's more in one year than we're likely to spend to rebuild the devastat
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7